Search results

The far left has a problem with... not recruiting the best in general. The Rittenhouse case shows it the best - he shot 3 aggressive leftist extremists at a riot, and... turns out he shot a pedo, a bipolar domestic abuser, and a burglar who likes alcohol too much. Truly the paragons of society...

Yeah, that again goes into the accident defense. But again, that generally applies to acts generally recognized as illegal, reducing or foregoing legal punishment on account of it being a terrible mix of circumstances that was not intended. The whole point of self-defense is that it's not...

Is having the wrong kind of hopes a crime? Are you legally obliged to avoid areas likely to be a stomping ground of criminals lest you want your intentions be questioned for going to them anyway? Obviously provoker and his actions cannot exist in a vacuum. They can exist in a culture, in a...

He was not intending to provoke people by any sane standard. He was intending to perform actions that in normal circumstances among normal, reasonable people would get no reaction at all. So if "wants to kill people", as in he wrote some ITG fantasies on the internet, for some unspecified...

>provoke You use that word... Does going to a place where criminals are rumored to operate and appearing as a valid target for their criminal activity constitute provocation? The way you are pointing it, really the intent in itself, if it can be evidenced, is the main crime there, which is...

In this case, the guy just wanted to drive through the public road like many people do every day. Protesters do not own public roads more than drivers, especially if they are setting up illegal blockades on them. Even then, the mafiosos are absolutely in the wrong. If he went and shouted that...

But the civil trial would be on "wrongful death", not self defense. I think the controversy here would be, does perfectly legal action or not refraining from a perfectly legal action count as "pretext" for purposes of 3? If, say, a mafioso demands protection money with a threat of violence from...

Can you point to the exact paragraph relevant to the significance of non-immediate, privately discussed steted intent regarding the situation in general? Because what i've found there is: The article suggests 1A and\or 1B were fulfilled, while on the other side, C1 "verbal provocation alone"...

By that logic, all the people in the provocative roadblock also have no right to self defense, it's all up to interpretation. That's pretty ridiculous, if that is the law at all. So, by that logic, pissing off people who have poor self control is illegal, unless: a) You don't defend yourself if...

If that is the law, then the law is ridiculous and needs to be changed. ITG postings on the internet are not a crime under 1A, and especially they aren't a crime warranting stripping someone of the right to self-defense. It goes back to classic argument with gun control activists - if you think...

Russia doesn't go around calling people reactionaries... anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Church%E2%80%93Missouri_Synod It's a LCMS member church in a different state. We are not in a court trying to sentence them. It doesn't *require* them to share identical political or...

As i said, for practical or ideological purposes, this group sounds like one completely interchangeable with antifa. Whether they use that specific label or merely are an off-brand antifa is of little importance as they appear to bat for the same team in terms of political activism. So...

So, can we just stop with the pointless exaggerations followed by arguing who exaggerated less? Also no, that jackass in question is claimed to be Lutheran too.

Did you read the MSN article? There is a reference to a group that obsesses about fascism on twitter and complains about "reactionaries", which technically may or may not be connected to antifa, but ideologically, that would b a cosmetic difference.

The other way around i think. Anfifas become homeless\squatters to save rent money in the notably ultra-expensive cities they tend to live in and in turn have money for drugs and shitty activism, from whatever welfare, crime or half time low wage job they have.

Because they are trolling by being "technically correct". It's a distributed organization consisting of hundreds, if not thousands of independent cells with no central hierarchical leadership, linked only by loosely leftist ideology, that only sometimes get together for major actions. And that...

On the contrary, absolutely not. The protection is, for practical reasons if nothing else, happening on local level, leaning towards the more progressive wing of Dems, usually on the level of mayors and DAs, sometimes up to state, this has little to do with national level politicians like her...

Between their ideological bent and the psychological effect of being in a violent group, surrounded by their "tribe", they feel like they are strong and righteous. In reality, they are a bunch of political thugs who as political thugs do pick fights eagerly with intent to beat up defenseless...

They are absolutely not against suing people when they think they have a case, and having you know, evidence, usually helps with proving a case more than deleting it. As the link mentions, one of them sued Andy for retweeting, lol. Now if in this case they know they would be in as much, if not...

Are they implying that Andy took lessons from the Kenosha Kid and did it or that Andy is the only reason why people may want to shoot at the innocent angels they are? Speaking of, there is this big question of what exactly were they doing when someone has decided to shoot at them, and why do...